Train the Trainer Course book - Cochrane Public Health Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

These data provide important information that enhances the ability to interpret outcome assessments, identify competing explanations for observed effects and measure exposure to the intervention. 5 However, very few studies disentangle the factors that ensure successful outcomes, characterise the failure to achieve success, or attempt to document the steps involved in achieving successful implementation of complex interventions. 10,11 In relation to the appraisal of process evaluations the EPPI-Centre has developed a 12-question checklist, available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/hp/reports/phase/phase_process.htm. Does the study focus on the delivery of a health promotion intervention? Screening questions 1. Does the study focus on a health promotion intervention? 2. Does the intervention have clearly stated aims? 3. Does the study describe the key processes involved in delivering the intervention? Detailed questions 4. Does the study tell you enough about planning and consultation? 5. Does the study tell you enough about the collaborative effort required for the intervention? 6. Does the study tell you enough about how the target population was identified and recruited? 7. Does the study tell you enough about education and training? B) What are the results? 8. Were all the processes described and adequately monitored? 9. Was the intervention acceptable? C) Will the results help me? 10. Can the results be applied to the local population? 11. Were all important processes considered? 12. If you wanted to know whether this intervention promotes health what outcomes would you want to measure? Examples of assessment of the intervention implementation Example: This study evaluated a 19-lesson, comprehensive school-based AIDS education program lasting one year in rural southwestern Uganda. Quantitative data collection (via questionnaire) found that the program had very little effect on overall knowledge, overall attitude, intended condom use, and intended assertive behaviour. Data from the focus group discussions suggested that the program was incompletely implemented, and that key activities such as condoms and the role-play exercises were only completed superficially. The main reasons for this were a shortage of classroom time, as well as teachers’ fear of controversy (condoms are an unwelcome intrusion into African tradition and may be associated with promiscuity). Teacher’s tended to teach only the activities that they preferred, leaving out the activities they were reluctant to teach. One problem with the intervention was that the program was additional to the standard curriculum, so teaching time was restricted. It was also found that neither teachers nor students were familiar with roleplay. Furthermore, a number of teachers also left the intervention schools (or died). Therefore, it is suggested that AIDS education programs in sub-Saharan Africa may be more fully implemented if they are fully incorporated into national curricula (see interpretation or results unit) and examined as part of school education. References: Kinsman J, Nakiyingi J, Kamali A, Carpenter L, Quigley M, Pool R, Whitworth J. Evaluation of a comprehensive school-based AIDS education programme in rural Masaka, Uganda. 74
Health Educ Res. 2001 Feb;16(1):85-100. Kinsman J, Harrison S, Kengeya-Kayondo J, Kanyesigye E, Musoke S, Whitworth J. Implementation of a comprehensive AIDS education programme for schools in Masaka District, Uganda. AIDS Care. 1999 Oct;11(5):591-601. Example: Gimme 5 Fruit, Juice and Vegetable intervention. This school-based intervention included components to be delivered at the school and newsletters with family activities and instructions for intervention at home. Overall, there were small changes in fruit, juice, and vegetable consumption. Teacher self-reported delivery of the intervention was 90%. However, all teachers were observed at least once during the 6-week intervention and it was found that only 51% and 46% of the curriculum activities were completed in the 4th and 5th grade years. Reference: Davis M, Baranowski T, Resnicow K, Baranowski J, Doyle C, Smith M, Wang DT, Yaroch A, Hebert D. Gimme 5 fruit and vegetables for fun and health: process evaluation. Health Educ Behav. 2000 Apr;27(2):167-76. REFERENCES 1. Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook Glossary, Version 4.1.5. www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/glossary.pdf, 6 December 2004 [date last accessed] 2. Thomas H, Micucci S, Thompson O'Brien MA, Briss P. Towards a reliable and valid instrument for quality assessment of primary studies in public health. Unpublished work. 2001. 3. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.0 [updated March 2003]. http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/handbook.htm 4. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2 nd Edition). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. March 2001. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm 5. Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt MK, Johnston D. Implications of the results of community intervention trials. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:379-416. 6. Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev 1998;18:23-45. 7. Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:119-27. 8. Basch CE, Sliepcevich EM, Gold RS, Duncan DF, Kolbe LJ. Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluations: a case study. Health Educ Q. 1985 Winter;12(4):315-31. 9. Lumley J, Oliver S, Waters E. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10. Steckler A, Linnan L (eds). Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. Jossey-Bass, USA, 2002. 75
Page 1 and 2:
TRAIN-THE-TRAINER HANDBOOOK Two-day
Page 3:
Contents Introduction .............
Page 6 and 7:
Additional reading: Textbooks: Oliv
Page 8 and 9:
2) ONCE REGISTRATIONS HAVE BEEN REC
Page 11:
OUTLINE OF TWO-DAY WORKSHOP 9:00am
Page 15 and 16:
Unit One: Background to Systematic
Page 17 and 18:
Reviews of clinical interventions v
Page 19 and 20:
FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 21 and 22:
Unit Two: International Systematic
Page 23 and 24:
FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 25 and 26:
Unit Three: Resources Required Lear
Page 27: Formulate review question Establish
Page 31 and 32: Unit Four: Developing a Protocol Le
Page 33 and 34: Establish an Advisory Group whose m
Page 35 and 36: FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 37 and 38: Unit Five: Asking an Answerable Que
Page 39 and 40: To investigate both the implementat
Page 41 and 42: Process evaluations: these studies
Page 43 and 44: REFERENCES 1. Oliver S. 1997. Explo
Page 45 and 46: FACILATOR’S GUIDE Time required:
Page 47 and 48: Unit Six: Finding The Evidence Lear
Page 49 and 50: CA38392 (NCI) Language English Entr
Page 51 and 52: Where to locate studies a) Electron
Page 53 and 54: ADDITIONAL READING Harden A, Peersm
Page 55 and 56: 45. "Diet-Fat-Restricted"/ all subh
Page 57 and 58: Brunton G, Harden A, Rees R, Kavana
Page 59 and 60: 1. Start with the primary concept,
Page 61 and 62: 5. Because adolescent has no narrow
Page 63: 12. Complete searches 8-12 and 13-2
Page 67 and 68: Unit Seven: Data Abstraction Learni
Page 69: FACILITATOR’S GUIDE Time required
Page 72 and 73: Introduction of bias into the condu
Page 74 and 75: population on gender, age, or educa
Page 76 and 77: 5) Data collection methods As highl
Page 80 and 81: 11. Green J, Tones K. Towards a sec
Page 83 and 84: QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTIT
Page 85 and 86: G) ANALYSIS (Q1) Is there a sample
Page 87 and 88: DICTIONARY for the Effective Public
Page 89 and 90: (i) (ii) If the study was reported
Page 91 and 92: F) WITHDRAWALS AND DROP-OUTS Q1 Ind
Page 93: C) CONFOUNDERS Strong Moderate Weak
Page 96 and 97: Emphasise that the criteria to appr
Page 98 and 99: Randomised controlled trial - criti
Page 100 and 101: calculation? Yes Partially No (Q2)
Page 102 and 103: Controlled before and after study -
Page 104 and 105: RATE THIS SECTION Strong Moderate W
Page 106 and 107: 102
Page 108 and 109: Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative Researc
Page 110 and 111: Screening Questions 1 Was there a c
Page 112 and 113: ……………………………
Page 114 and 115: 110
Page 116 and 117: A Checklist for Evaluating Evidence
Page 118 and 119: 114
Page 120 and 121: Where studies are more homogenous,
Page 122 and 123: 118
Page 124 and 125: 120
Page 126 and 127: esulting from some community interv
Page 128 and 129:
Reviewers should use the RE-AIM mod
Page 130 and 131:
Economic efficiency Harms Economic
Page 132 and 133:
9. Swerrissen H, Crisp BR. The sust
Page 134 and 135:
Exercise: Allow participants 20 min
Page 136 and 137:
who had participated in their smoki
Page 138 and 139:
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
Page 140 and 141:
……………………………
Page 142 and 143:
2 points out of the possible 4 poin
Page 144 and 145:
- search for non-English language s
Page 146:
9. Were all important outcomes cons
show all

Train the Trainer Course book - Cochrane Public Health Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?